Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

This a first post in a series. I am working on translating variation units for the the Apocalypse of John somewhat like the Acts Bezae project but a slightly different focus. Not sticking with one manuscript like I did with Bezae project. Here is a question I raised on another forum where I was only one (so far) to respond.

H.B. Swete, R.H. Charles and others including a minority of the "committee" Metxger TextCom 1stEd. prefer the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς. Metzger says "Despite what appears to be Hellenistic usage a minority of the committee strongly prefers the use of the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς."

What is this all about? What does Hellenistic usage refer to in this context?

I found Danker's (3rd Ed) discussion of this p268 under εαυτου 1st paragraph. Also J.H. Moulton vol.2 p181, and Metxger's comments on Phil 3:21 TextCom 1stEd page 615-616. I am somewhat befuddled by the question "what is at stake here?", it seems that there is some contradiction or merely confusion in the different treatments. One treatment is semantic, saying that αὐτοὺς in the Hellenistic period expanded to overlap with the semantic domains of εαυτου. Other treatments seem to be focused simply on orthography (not semantic issues) saying that in some mss at some dates and locations the epsilon in εαυτου was omitted. I am really interested in the semantic issue but you really can not totally divorce the semantic issue from the spelling issue.

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:One treatment is semantic, saying that αὐτοὺς in the Hellenistic period expanded to overlap with the semantic domains of εαυτου. .

Perhaps I have not understood what Danker and others are saying. At first I thought they were claiming that αὐτοὺς had expanded to include reflexive usage overlapping with εαυτου. Now I wonder if that is really the case. Two more places to look, Moule Idioms p119 and Louw & Nida footnote #11 on page 818, §92.37 which I will cut and paste here:

11 Note the overlap between αὐτόςb (92.11) and αὐτόςc (92.37). αὐτόςb serves essentially as a reference to the third person, both singular and plural, and only in the nominative form does it carry emphasis. This could very well be classified as an instance of αὐτόςc. In the oblique cases there is no such emphasis. On the other hand, αὐτόςc may be an adjunct to any lexical item in an oblique case and, as such, carries emphasis.

I am still somewhat less than perfectly clear about this. Particularly the semantic impact of reflexive pronoun vs non-reflexive. I suspect it would involve a change of referent from the trumpets to the Angels:

NKJV Rev. 8:6 So the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. based on the Maj/TR Reading ητοιμασαν εαυτους ινα σαλπισωσιν.

NRSV Rev. 8:6 Now the seven angels who had the seven trumpets made ready to blow them. NA27 ἡτοίμασαν αὐτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν

Now my question is, which breathing of αυτους lies behind the NRSV? I am assuming that it is the smooth breathing?

Generally, it would be difficult to tell whether the rough breathing or the smooth breathing was contemplated by the original author in a case like this if a masculine noun were in question, since the text was presumably composed before breathings came into general use, but τὰς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας is feminine.

So the angels can't be preparing their trumpets--they must be perparing themselves, and I don't see how αυτους can be anything but reflexive with rough breathing, not αὐτούς with smooth breath -- unless what is meant by "Hellenistic usage" is the use of αὐτούς as heteroclite. (I'm unaware that this is the case, but I'm unaware of a lot of things.) I'd suggest checking the authorities on NT koine to see if something like this is going on.

But I think the NRSV translation probably assumes a rough breathing (reflexive), with "them" added just as a complement to "blow," which is implicit in the Greek verb σαλπίσωσιν. In English, you would not write "prepared themselves/made ready to trumpet": the verb you would naturally use is "blow", which in English requires an object in this context.

Qimmik wrote:Generally, it would be difficult to tell whether the rough breathing or the smooth breathing was contemplated by the original author in a case like this if a masculine noun were in question, since the text was presumably composed before breathings came into general use, but τὰς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας is feminine.

Yes in any other author I would agree that we need to have concord gender. However, the author of the Apocalypse of John is somewhat notorious for ignoring concord and all manner of Koine syntax. I consulted everything I had on hand which is most of the NT Greek grammars published in the last 150 years. Didn't come away with a clear picture of what was going on.

I appears that what was common in Classical greek was disappearing by the time the Apocalypse was written in the later half of the first century, some say very late first century. Some of the NT grammarians claim that αὑτος (rough breathing) was virtually extinct by the time the NT was written.

P. Guillemette shows αὑτοὺς (rough breathing) only in Hebrews 12:3 as a variant. UBS3 shows εἰς αὑτοὺς (rough breathing) for (81 εἰς αὑτοὺς) but Lamprola who I assume gets his apparatus from Munster shows 81 in Hebrews 12:3 as VID reading, notoriously unreliable tag for a reading. I have tracked down a few dozen of them and just ignore VID readings.

I have read that this became a common feature found in Koine, very common in the LXX. I think this is what Metzger means by "Hellenistic usage." But I may be wrong, but I think you find this even in Attic, maybe even in Homer. And of course it is an editorial judgment call in these cases whether this would truly be the personal pronoun αὐτὸν or whether, as Qimmik notes, it might be the orthographic variant αὑτόν for ἑαυτόν. Then you've got the fact that at some point in the development of Greek αὑτόν and αὐτόν would have sounded the same anyway, and of course would have been spelled the same before the breathings were introduced into later manuscripts.

I sure don't see anything at stake here, other than the fact that some of the points raised above could allow one, in this case anyway, to defend the Revelator as less "ungrammatical" as some want to see him.

It is very common in Ancient Greek to find the personal pronoun where the reflexive would be expected as more "proper," e.g

A true reflexive or merely intensive? This is why I don't like the meta language of old school grammar. The English gloss for reflexive and intensive is often the same. Another issue, this is an oblique case. An intensive pronoun is supposed to be in the nominative case, right?

If you look back a few posts I have some discussion and data about Heb 12:3, the only place where AUTOUS is cited as a rough breathing in the UBSGNT apparatus as of the 3rd Ed according to P. Guillemette's analytical GNT.

The grammar discussion of the intensive pronoun in regard to nominative and oblique cases sounded like "white man speaking with forked tongue." On the one hand the grammarian said that only in the nominative case is a pronoun intensive and the same grammarian then turned around an contradicted that statement. So where are we? Can you have AUTOUS functioning as an intensive pronoun or not?

One further thought: The "Hellenistic usage" may be manifested by the use of the oblique cases of the personal pronouns, ἐμέ, σέ, ἡμᾶς, ὑμᾶς, etc., as reflexives. This usage, if in fact it occurs (I don't have much experience with post-classical Greek), would, of course, show up in texts without breathings, and would imply disappearance of reflexive pronouns and use of αὐτόν, etc. with smooth breathings where third person reflexives would have been used by Attic authors.

And come to think of it, in my reading through of the Iliad and the Odyssey earlier this year, I seem to recall at least one instance where some form of αὐτός was used as a reflexive, a pronomiminal reference that puzzled me until I looked at the notes.

Another issue, this is an oblique case. An intensive pronoun is supposed to be in the nominative case, right?

I'm not sure how best to classify αὐτός as a pronoun, but reflexive pronouns only occur in oblique cases. Smyth calls αὐτός the intensive pronoun and adjective, and it can be used as an intensive adjective in the oblique cases with nouns.

Last edited by Qimmik on Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One other point worth noting here is that koine-speakers were probably largely or completely psilotic by the first century CE--the rough breathing had probably already been lost in actual speech by that time, as is the case in modern Greek.

The breathing marks (like the accents) were originally added to the texts of the Homeric poems precisely because people were unsure when to pronounce the rough breathing, and they were subsequently added to other texts in accordance with traditions of classical (5th-4th century BCE) Attic pronunciation.

But psilosis began quite early in dialects other than Attic: the surviving fragments of the Lesbian poets are psilotic, and Herodotus was probably psilotic (in the medieval manuscript tradition, breathings have been added in accordance with Attic practice, but forms such as ἀπίξεαι, ἀπίκατο, ἀπικομένων from Attic ἀφικνέομαι suggest psilosis masked by Atticizing breathings added much later).

There is even evidence that the "original" Ionic version of the Homeric poems may have been psilotic--when rough breathings were eventually added to texts of Homer, they were marked only on words that had rough breathings in Attic, but words that don't appear in Attic have smooth breathings, e.g., ἡμέρα (Attic) vs. ἦμαρ (non-Attic), which are etymologically from the same source. This suggests that the rough breathings were added in accordance with Attic traditions to texts that went back to psilotic originals.

So by first century CE, there was probably no difference in pronunciation between αὑτούς and αὐτούς in daily speech, except possibly for some elite speakers trained in the traditional Attic pronunciation transmitted in schools.

Qimmik wrote:One other point worth noting here is that koine-speakers were probably psilotic--the rough breathing had already been lost in actual speech by the first century CE, as is the case in modern Greek.

{ … }

So by first century CE, there would probably have been no difference in pronunciation between αὑτούς and αὐτοὺς.

Good points. Helps one to understand why the NT authors would prefer the more explicit reflexive EAUTOUS to hAUTOUS. I got around to looking at all my grammars sans A.T. Robertson. This takes a long time, but is necessary to disambiguate paragraphs like the notorious fn 11 in Louw & Nida §92.37, p818.

11 Note the overlap between αὐτόςb (92.11) and αὐτόςc (92.37). αὐτόςb serves essentially as a reference to the third person, both singular and plural, and only in the nominative form does it carry emphasis. This could very well be classified as an instance of αὐτόςc. In the oblique cases there is no such emphasis. On the other hand, αὐτόςc may be an adjunct to any lexical item in an oblique case and, as such, carries emphasis.

One rather obvious thing which might cause confusion, the aspirated hAUTOUS is a different form of EAUTOUS, not a form of the un-aspirated AUTOUS. So we shouldn't speak of the un-aspirated AUTOUS as reflexive unless we want to invite confusion. The NT grammarians (i.e., major reference works) appear to be in agreement that the unambiguous EAUTOUS was preferred to hAUTOUS. The list of passages under consideration for possible examples of the hAUTO— (oblique cases) does not include Revelation 8:6. So we now return to the original question. We have two readings AUTOUS and EAUTOUS. The translations of the AUTOUS are less explicitly reflexive. Why?

Are ἐμέ, σέ, ἡμᾶς, ὑμᾶς, etc. used reflexively in NT Greek? This would indicate that the reflexive pronouns were on the decline, and that the personal pronouns and oblique forms of αὐτός were replacing them.

But as for the English translation, I don't think there's really any discernable difference between "prepared themselves" and "made ready". In any event, active ἑτοιμάζω is transitive, and αυτους, whether with rough or smooth breathing, must be reflexive in meaning.

None in the accusative, no. The only possible instance is with the dative in Mt 6:19:

Mt. 6:19: Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς...

Though you could, I suppose, take, ὑμῖν as a dative of possession.

I suppose one might find more in the manuscripts and the papyri, but I think γνῶθι σε is intolerable even in Koine.

I am writing in Ancient Greek not because I know Greek well, but because I hope that it will improve my fluency in reading. I got the idea for this from Adrianus over on the Latin forum here at Textkit.

Qimmik wrote:. In any event, active ἑτοιμάζω is transitive, and αυτους, whether with rough or smooth breathing, must be reflexive in meaning.

I agree. Unavoidable. BTW, of all the commentaries I looked at only Friedrich Dusterdieck (Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Handbook, English ed. 1884) directly addresses the reflexive meaning in the comment (not the apparatus). He reads ητοιμασαν εαυτους "… grasping the trumpets in such a way that they could bring them to their mouths."

Qimmik wrote:. In any event, active ἑτοιμάζω is transitive, and αυτους, whether with rough or smooth breathing, must be reflexive in meaning.

I agree. Unavoidable. BTW, of all the commentaries I looked at only Friedrich Dusterdieck (Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Handbook, English ed. 1884) directly addresses the reflexive meaning in the comment (not the apparatus). He reads ητοιμασαν εαυτους "… grasping the trumpets in such a way that they could bring them to their mouths."

Only one small hedge on "unavoidable" John author of the Apocalypse has a somewhat disdainful attitude toward grammatical rules. One suspects he knows better but just doesn't care. Blass-Deb.-Fk 1961 § 282 "the third person pronoun AUTOU etc. is often used without formal agreement … " but he isn't talking about the kinds of outrageous stuff we find in the Apocalypse.

My problem, how to distinguish in English between the variants οὐδὲ, οὔτε, οὐ, καὶ οὐ against the background of the ESV shown here:

ESV Rev. 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk,

I spent hours last night reading Smyth, BDF, N. Turner, F. Danker, Grimm-Thayer (quite helpful), and a host others on negative correlative particles οὐδὲ & οὔτε but I still up against the wall when it comes to representing the difference in English which is the task at hand.

Thayer who probably should be ignored because he tended to use Attic rules for NT grammar, said that οὐδὲ was distinguished from οὔτε by the fact that οὔτε represents members of the same entity. Showing that in an English translation is approaching impossible.

Perhaps if I more clearly understood οὐδὲ differed from οὔτε in Attic I might be able to at least explain why it cannot be translated into English. It is quite evident that the scribes copying these mss often didn't distinguish between οὐδὲ & οὔτε. Furthermore, the Syriac versions used something like καὶ οὐ which looks like a hyper-literal solution to a problem not clearly understood.

I don't think οὐδέ is a correlative conjunction according to BDF §445, despite the heading. It begins:

445. Negative correlatives: οὔτε... οὔτε... (μήτε... μήτε); the connective after a negative clause is οὐδέ (μηδέ), after a positive καὶ οὐ (καὶ μή). All of this remains the same as in classical.

which is not too clear. The fact that 'Negative correlatives' is in bold, apparently as the heading for the section, might suggest that οὐδέ is being classed as a correlative, contrary I think to the usual form of classification of conjunctions. Here is Blass Debrunner, §77.10:

10. The use of correlative negative clauses with οὔτε... οὔτε or μήτε... μήτε respectively, and of οὐδέ or μηδέ respectively as a connecting particle after negative sentences (and of καὶ οὐ, καὶ μὴ after positive sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek.

which I think makes it clear that two classes are in view, and that οὐδέ is being classed as a connective rather than a correlative. So far as I can see from Blass-Debrunner §77.5-6, both these are classed within copulative conjuctions, which in turn come under coordinating conjunctions. Presumably, BDF 445 is following this scheme, but the terseness of style has made it less apparent.

Recently, I had a look at all the cases of οὐδέ in the New Testament, and for what it's worth - and I don't know much about the Greek of Revelation - but in general, I found a lot of consistency in οὐδέ being a coordinating/connecting conjunction when used after a previous negative, but adverbial 'not even' when it is not. There doesn't seem to be a previous negative here (the relative clause presumably doesn't count), so I think one should consider an adverbial sense here. The NIV seems to have something of this sort:

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands;

'still' - 'even then'. This is not quite the same as 'not even', but fairly close, perhaps?

Otherwise, οὐδὲ and οὔτε (as well as καὶ οὐ) are adverbial, or better, pesky particles, better felt than analyzed or translated:

οὐδὲ: "And the rest of the folks, who were not killed, did not, let me tell you, repent" οὔτε: "And the rest of folks, who were not killed, did not, like, repent."καὶ οὐ: "And the rest of the folks, who were not killed, did not, you know, repent."οὐ: "And the rest of the folks, who were not killed, did not repent."

My assumption being that the differences in the variants are euphonic, not semantic.

Markos wrote:My assumption being that the differences in the variants are euphonic, not semantic.

Perhaps you are right, but the project "requirements" entail translation of variants against the background of the ESV in such a manner that an English reader can see what "difference" the variant would make in her own language. This is not my project. I didn't define the objectives. It is in fact in keeping with the goals of the project to illustrate that a vast majority of textual variation units are down right trivial in regard to semantic impact on the English translation. So when Bart Ehrman goes on NPR (FreshAir with Terry Gross) and starts talking about how unstable the text of the NT is we can say to people "come and see for yourself what difference these variants make to the New Testament." The Acts Bezae project was a worst case scenario where some of the variation units are paragraphs long and total rewrites of the story but never the less the basic narrative doesn't change. The facts don't change.

I agree this variant doesn't amount to "a hill of beans" but I need to translate it none the less.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:This is not my project. I didn't define the objectives. It is in fact in keeping with the goals of the project to illustrate that a vast majority of textual variation units are down right trivial in regard to semantic impact on the English translation. So when Bart Ehrman goes on NPR (FreshAir with Terry Gross) and starts talking about how unstable the text of the NT is we can say to people "come and see for yourself what difference these variants make to the New Testament." The Acts Bezae project was a worst case scenario where some of the variation units are paragraphs long and total rewrites of the story but never the less the basic narrative doesn't change. The facts don't change.

Actually, Clayton, I am supportive of the goal of this project. Ehrman's book on textual criticism is in fact a mass of distortions and overstatement. The scribes' overall preservation of the basic meaning of the texts is a remarkable fact that the general public should know.

...that an English reader can see what "difference" the variant would make in her own language.

Maybe then we can say that the difference between οὐδὲ μετενόησαν and οὔτε μετενόησαν is LIKE the difference between "they did not repent" and "they didn't repent." Not that these track in meaning, but that may be close to how the "difference" would have been perceived, namely, negligibly at best.

Now that we know why you are doing what you are doing, feel free to ask more questions.

Baffling subject and some of the most impenetrable mysteries of Greek Syntax. H. W. Smyth §2937 plainly states οὐδὲ ...οὐδὲ is NOT correlative. The adverbial use of οὐδὲ/οὔτε is something I will need to ponder for a while. It took me a long time to get a handle on Levinsohn's treatment of KAI/DE/TE in narrative and I wouldn't even attempt to summarize it. Summarizing Levinsohn is as destructive act. You can't summarize him, without destroying the delicate nuances of his method and ideas. He may end up being just plain wrong about some things. We experienced that with S. E. Porter in the 1990s. After reading Porter and his fellow travelers for about five years it became very plain to me that "the center could not hold" and things would indeed "fall apart" as they have.

Andrew Chapman wrote:Recently, I had a look at all the cases of οὐδέ in the New Testament, and for what it's worth - and I don't know much about the Greek of Revelation - but in general, I found a lot of consistency in οὐδέ being a coordinating/connecting conjunction when used after a previous negative, but adverbial 'not even' when it is not. There doesn't seem to be a previous negative here (the relative clause presumably doesn't count), so I think one should consider an adverbial sense here. The NIV seems to have something of this sort:

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands;

'still' - 'even then'. This is not quite the same as 'not even', but fairly close, perhaps?

Andrew

This is good. I think this is becoming clear or at least somewhat easier to understand. I was probably lead astray by the Not … Nor language in some versions, thinking they meant neither … nor or something of that sort. What is really happening is we have two successive conjunctions joined with negative particles not a compound sentence made of either/or components.

Here we see the best manuscripts lining up behind behind [περιβεβλημένους] a "meaningless" reading:

[περιβεβλημένοι] 01c, Byz, ς[περιβεβλημένους] 01*, 02, 025, Byz, WH

Metzger TextComm. 1st ed. claims this reading is "meaningless" despite the fact that syntax is not a strong point for the Author of Revelation. In other places "difficult" readings are preferred even without good manuscript support. So why here are we unwilling to let author employ strange syntax. I find verse three difficult with both variants. A little more difficult with accusative plural περιβεβλημένους, but not "meaningless."

The participle περιβεβλημένοι has no nominative antecedent. I suppose we could say it agrees with the person number inflection of προφητεύσουσιν, i.e., the unexpressed subject of the verb. It also agrees with οὗτοί at the head of the next clause. But most traditional grammarians don't cross clause boundaries for syntax analysis. (However, that is done in text-linguistics.)

περιβεβλημένοι is read by all the recent critical texts NA27/UBS3/4 SBLGNT, R-P, but not by WH & Treg. I generally don't take sides regarding these issues but on this one I am presently leaning toward WH & Treg.

The decisions of textual critics are occasionally hard to fathom. The argument Meztger gives is the clueless scribe establish concorde between the participle and σάκκους. It seems more likely that it was the author that did this and the scribes corrected it as in 01c to agree with οὗτοί at head of the next clause.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:This is not my project. I didn't define the objectives. It is in fact in keeping with the goals of the project to illustrate that a vast majority of textual variation units are down right trivial in regard to semantic impact on the English translation. So when Bart Ehrman goes on NPR (FreshAir with Terry Gross) and starts talking about how unstable the text of the NT is we can say to people "come and see for yourself what difference these variants make to the New Testament." The Acts Bezae project was a worst case scenario where some of the variation units are paragraphs long and total rewrites of the story but never the less the basic narrative doesn't change. The facts don't change.

Actually, Clayton, I am supportive of the goal of this project. Ehrman's book on textual criticism is in fact a mass of distortions and overstatement. The scribes' overall preservation of the basic meaning of the texts is a remarkable fact that the general public should know.

...that an English reader can see what "difference" the variant would make in her own language.

Maybe then we can say that the difference between οὐδὲ μετενόησαν and οὔτε μετενόησαν is LIKE the difference between "they did not repent" and "they didn't repent." Not that these track in meaning, but that may be close to how the "difference" would have been perceived, namely, negligibly at best.

Now that we know why you are doing what you are doing, feel free to ask more questions.

χάρις σοί τε καὶ σοῖς.

Markos,

Eherman and his disciple for the Apocalypse Juan Hernandez are both pursuing an agenda which is not supported by the facts on the ground. Hernandez chose Codex Sinaiticus to demonstrate deliberate theological tampering with the Apocalypse. This would be like choosing Codex Bezae as a representative of scribal habits for the Gospels and Acts. Codex Sinaiticus in the Apocalypse is not a good manuscript.

Last two days I have been doing Chapter 13. The variation units in Chapter 13 are amazing, some of them have 12 different readings for one variation unit. The apparatus doesn't list all 12, but Metzger, Aune and others say there are 12. Translating them to demonstrate the difference is well neigh impossible since the difference is very minute and it simply doesn't show up an RSV/ESV like translation. I have posted here a few verses from Ch 13. The English renderings are not finished but the problem of showing a difference is illustrated by these examples

Rev. 18:2b is passage where almost without doubt the NA/UBSGNT does not represent the original text. It is actually a combination of variation units of such complexity that Metzter's commentary (1st Ed.) presents it in the form of a table. If you put it all together into one variation unit the authorities (manuscripts, versions, quotations) behind the NA/UBSGNT do not include any early Greek witnesses. This seems to be an example of what happens with the eclectic approach.

Rev. 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice,“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.<

I am posting this here because it is relevant to this thread. There are syriac scholars I know for sure on the other forum so I posted it there as well knowing that the probability of getting an answer isn't too high. The people are there but they rarely respond.

For the text highlighted above in Rev 21.4d the UBSGNT apparatus has this:

ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς] syr(ph)

My question: what does this back-translation represent in Syriac? For example, αὐτῆς looks like pronominal suffix which is obligatory, right?

Second question: do the english versions of the syriac (below) which look suspiciously like the AV or it's cousins actually represent what is going on here or did the translators just stick with what was familiar? (which often happens) I am assuming that the sixth cent. ms. Ph of the Apocalypse would be behind the text used in the english versions. Could of course be wrong about that.

(Murd)And every tear will be wiped from their eyes; and there will no more be death, nor mourning, nor wailing; nor shall pain be any more; because the former things are passed away.(Eth)And every tear shall be wiped away from their eyes, and death shall be no more; nor sorrow, nor clamour, nor pain, shall be any more; for the former things are passed away

At this point my problem is mostly about the genitive singular fem. pronominal suffix represented as αὐτῆς. It should be a genitive plural. It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac. My previous suggestion that αὐτῆς refers back to the holy city has been dropped from consideration. The most obvious reading of οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς.: "nor will there be any longer pain on their faces", but I am open to other suggestions.

At this point my problem is mostly about the genitive singular fem. pronominal suffix represented as αὐτῆς. It should be a genitive plural. It looks like a nonsense reading but I don't totally understand how a pronominal suffix works in Syriac. My previous suggestion that αὐτῆς refers back to the holy city has been dropped from consideration. The most obvious reading of οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς.: "nor will there be any longer pain on their faces" , right?

I found a translation in 1929 Text of the Apokalypse vol 1 and 2 p557, (indexed by Dirk Jongkind ,Tyndale House Cambridge)

(21:4d) [and not grief anymore will be] upon faces. And I went away (21:5a) and he said to me (syrS)

The back translation ἔτι ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῆς with the singular αὐτῆς representing a pronominal suffix after a τὰ πρόσωπα represents a common Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, but it doesn't represent the way this idiom is presented in the NT or LXX. In other words idiom never appears in this form in the LXX where the pronoun in the singular follows a noun in plural. Thanks to Randall Buth for helping with this. You find his contribution here:

this looks like a future use of the aorist (?) context appears to demand a future.

Juan Hernandez suggests this may be an allusion to ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.

Ehrman and Hernandez might suggest (maybe they do) that the scribe "corrected" the text to make it clear that the incarnation is a past, not a future event. "The orthodox corruption of scripture" or some such allegation. But this involves reading the minds of scribes, something that I'm not sure how Ehrman and Metzger learned to do. I can just as easily say that the variant is a "proleptic" aorist representing the future, and thus show that nothing is being corrupted here because the meaning of the text, as it almost always does, remains the same.

I got off to a bad start this morning looking at Hodges and Farstad (GNT BYZ TEXT 2nd ed) on Rev 3:7b which in their apparatus is very complex several different strands of the Byz text reported, along with the Alexandrian Codices. I have a simple question, has anyone seen an actual english translation of the BYZ text as reported in Robinson-Pierpont 2005, particularly the text highlighted below.